Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google

from the suicide-squeeze dept

And we thought that perhaps -- just perhaps -- Rupert Murdoch was coming to his senses with the plan to delay putting up a paywall. Turns out that may have been wishful thinking. Mathew Ingram alerts us to the news that Murodch has suggested that News Corp. might actually remove its sites from Google. Of course, I won't actually believe it until it happens, but he has had his minions going around slamming Google even as News Corp. offers its own aggregators. But actually following through and removing News Corp's sites from Google would be a huge step to take -- though one right off the side of a big cliff. Still, I'm sure it would make for a fun case study.

"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether..."

Wow. Of course, if that's true, then (again) we need to point out that News Corp. has been making use of fair use for years with its own aggregators. In fact, most news organizations regularly make use of fair use. Perhaps News Corps' lawyers who work in their news divisions might want to sit Murdoch down and explain the importance of fair use from a reporting perspective. They might also want to point him to the history of fair use within copyright law, in case he thinks it's something that was just made up yesterday.

You have to listen to the interview more carefully to pick up the underlying concepts, and they are actually very powerful.

Most important, he is realizing that all the eyeballs in the world are just that, eyeballs, and nothing more. Mooch eyeballs, non-payer eyeballs, and eyeballs that never really make it to your site because they stayed somewhere else to read the headlines are all useless eyeballs. The advertisers for the most part don't want them, and especially when you consider regional news services, they don't particularly want or need people from the other half of the world using up bandwidth for nothing.

Most of their newspapers would be doing really well to basically limit google to their main pages and maybe section pages, but no actual stories. The traffic they would lose would be mostly the traffic that isn't doing anything for them, and they would be able to continue to offer a quality product to their target market.

Viral connections, the spreading of news person to person will continue. Blog links to stories will continue. But the true mooches, the googles and other aggregators will find themselves with less content AND less relevance. Understand that Google is entirely built on everyone else, that is a key move.

If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks. An out of date search engines isn't very powerful, is it?

Re:

Re:

You're right, if every website in the world actually 'banned Googlebot' then there would be nothing for Google to list and Google would no longer be relevant. Now what are the chances of that happening? Can you say astronomically low?

Of course I could turn that around and say this: If every one in the world stopped talking to News Corp. tomorrow, News Corp. would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks. An out of date news organization isn't very powerful, is it?

Unfortunately, Murdoch is apparently trying to cut off one of the ways for the profitable 'eyeballs' to actually find News Corp. content. How would this move affect News Corp.? I don't know, that's why Mike said this would be an interesting case study.

As a slight side note, why does it sound like you're one of those sent out to bash Google?

@ Murdoch's #37 fan

How exactly would people find these blogs, or make these viral connections, without search engine results to point them there? Google works because it's a one-stop shop to search for whatever you're looking for.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that there's no way every website in the world will ban Googlebot. Those who do will be at an immediate disadvantage to those who don't. Murdoch's competitors must be salivating over the prospect that he'll actually follow through on this idea, handing them free traffic as a result.

Re:

The advertisers for the most part don't want them, and especially when you consider regional news services, they don't particularly want or need people from the other half of the world using up bandwidth for nothing.

The costs of an individual hitting your web page approaches 0. The potential monetization is greater than that infitessimal number. The solution is not to reduce your traffic in attempts to filter out low value eyeballs, but to more effectively monetize every eyeball that you do get.

If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks. An out of date search engines isn't very powerful, is it?

This will never even come close to happening because there will always be some people that realize the value of eyeballs, and they will want them. It has nothing to do with Google or the mainstream media, but in the value of search engines and the value of those that create content and want to be searched and found.

Also I feel like you're extremely overvaluing the mainstream news content. There's a lot more out there besides the main stream press, and a lot of it may even qualify as providing relevant information on news that I care about.

Re: Re:

The costs of an individual hitting your web page approaches 0. The potential monetization is greater than that infitessimal number. The solution is not to reduce your traffic in attempts to filter out low value eyeballs, but to more effectively monetize every eyeball that you do get.

if you listened to the interview, Murdoch stated the unhappy truth: There are very few news websites making any serious money at it. The margins are too small, the costs too high, etc.

While it is true that the marginal costs only of one extra viewer are low, if that one extra viewer does not do anything of value, you need another viewer to try to make that up. If a signficant number of your viewers are not profitable viewers, you have an issue.

Most regional newspapers don't want to get involved in national or internation sales, and the current crop of ad serving networks really don't pay enough to make it work out properly on a large scale. These regional papers / TV stations are set up to market to local, regional, and in some cases national interests, but not to international. The additional costs to attempt to market to an over wide audience of non-clickers is just more money down the same hole.

Just as importantly, if the index pages of these sites are still indexed, then it is likely that someone searching for "hometown news" will still find the site in google, so they will be satisfied.

All blocking Googlebot from stories and inside pages does is remove a huge churn of useless visitors. In Murdoch's terms, it is better to let national and international news seekers go to fox news or sky news than it is to run them through a local paper. Those international properties are set up exactly to market to people from all over the world, and do a much better job of it.

Re: Re: Re:

if you listened to the interview, Murdoch stated the unhappy truth: There are very few news websites making any serious money at it. The margins are too small, the costs too high, etc.

I'd argue that's not because there getting too much traffic, but because they haven't figured out how to make any money off that traffic.

If I open up a bar next to a college, targetting frat kids, and low and behold; I become an indie hipster hangout, then I'm going to start selling something those indie hipsters want (coffee / fancy drinks) rather than telling them to get the heck out of my store. I don't see how this is different.

Find out who your community is (whether it's a local community or a topical community or whatever). Find out what they might pay money for. Sell it to them (either via advertising / sponsorships / partnerings or directly yourself). Connect with your user base. Offer them value. Give them a reason to buy.

In the case of newspapers, I'd personally try something along the lines of what Mike often suggests, community building. I don't see how reducing traffic to your site, wherever that traffic comes from, does anything but hurt your community.

Re:

> If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow,
> google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease
> altogether within weeks. An out of date search engines
> isn't very powerful, is it?

This is the stupidest thing I've read today. Why do you think the internet exploded? Without a useful search engine, the internet is a bunch of floating islands. Remember when all websites had a "useful links" page? Good links were gold. Google destroyed all that, because if you forget the link you just google it and find the page again.

Re:

If every website in the world banned Googlebot tomorrow, google would cease to be relevant within days, and cease altogether within weeks.
Well, there's a reason why everyone trashed your remark. It belongs in the Recycle Bin.

Re: Re:

Let's see. image search is just search on images, would also be lost on blocking. Stores? Who would come to the stores that can be found only by searching a stale search engine? Free software? What do you think pays for it (hint, google ads!). It's the same answer I give a lot of people here, you have to look past the curtain to see what is propping up what. Remove one stick, what falls down?

You're under the impression Google "takes" and you're incredibly ignorant to believe this. Google doesn't take anything people don't want listed. As stated in other comments, *anyone* can block Google's search indexer.

That is exactly what they are considering doing. You make it sound like he doesn't have a clue. Check your bank account, check his. Check the number of companies you own, check his list. Call me when you catch up. Just being insulting towards a very successful businessman is arrogant.

Google isn't going anywhere, but the newspaper industry is. I'm sure that for every NewsCorp site blocked by Google, "local home paper" gets added.

Wake up. They own the "local home paper".

You really should remove yourself from the 80s and understand what *digital distribution* truly means.

Snarky answer. Sorry, but digital distribution is just distribution, it isn't content. Without the content, Google is just a nice collection of software nobody is paying for. Distribution should be something you ask for, not something that is shoved onto you without permission. Murdoch is just looking for the best means to control the distribution of his products, and stating that Google doesn't have the right to make that choice for him.

Re:

Most important, he is realizing that all the eyeballs in the world are just that, eyeballs, and nothing more.

This is insightful.

The problem with Murdoch's approach though, is that he doesn't want to compete with Google, he wants to cripple it.

As Masnick points out repeatedly (and I happen to agree with), you don't grow your business by ruining the customer experience. You grow your business by finding out what the customer wants and figuring out how to provide it profitably.

Re:

I've always believed that fair use originates from the first amendment. Just because someone copyrights something, doesn't eliminate my ability to talk or write about it. And I'm not just talking about critical commentary. "I just heard this new song come listen to it!" or "Watch this cool video I saw." Being told, "Sorry, they have to pay if you want them to listen or see a copyrighted work" sounds to me like a limitation of my speech.

Re:

The thing is Google's "fair use" isn't saying "we found this story about such and such, look over here to read it", they just take the text of the page and use that directly. It crosses the line from the standard of fair use and moves right over to what I would call "fronting" the news. Trying to get in the way of the surfer to cause extra page views, and to benefit from the work of others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If I can read the headlines and the first paragraph on google, why would I go to the website? I got the information I needed without consulting the site that created the content, and the site that created the content got nothing for it.

Google is very, very close on the edge of fair use. Their moto is "do no evil" but they are proving to be a very evil company indeed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If I can read the headlines and the first paragraph on google, why would I go to the website? I got the information I needed without consulting the site that created the content, and the site that created the content got nothing for it.

If that is all the news you ever consume, you sir, are a moron. What you actually claiming here is that full articles are useless and that news websites can just do headlines and nothing else.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Holy crap! Really? Wow, those Google thieves. Instead of saying "hey there's some cool news at news corp! go there and read it!" they actually index the story and tell you if it's about tanks, puppies or the economy! The scoundrels...

And Texas will secede from the USA

This is saber rattling, plain and simple. Businessmen usually make this type of statement during a negotiation to strengthen their position, though I fail to see how this helps Rupert/FOX.

I actually WELCOME Fox News being removed from Google. I've been requesting that Google News give me the ability to EXCLUDE FOX News from their iGoogle News module since launch. I don't WANT to see them, but I can't seem to filter them out of the aggregator's feed.

Re: And Texas will secede from the USA

Agreed. Google's current search is suboptimal. I find a lot of Murdoch's content irrelevant, Fox News in particular. Although the keywords match and hence show up in my search results, the dribble that spews forth is offending to both the eyes and ears.

Re:

"Where would early Greek works be without DRM?"

Dude, the Greeks were PIRATES! They'd just recite Homer's works without any kind of compensation to his grandkids! Just think how many works Homer never produced because he didn't benefit from draconian copyright laws!

Fair use

Oh Rupert. Fair use has never been in better shape and more widely used, and yes, you do use it all the time at Newscorp, no more obviously than in all your news reports. For more fair use info, especially for online video, documentary filmmakers, and media literacy teachers, check out centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse. Sheesh.

Rupert the red-nosed mogul
Has a very large empire
And if you saw his holdings
You'd see that things are quite dire
All of the other moguls
Used to laugh and call him names
They never let poor Rupert
Play in any mogul games
Then one bearish Christmas eve
Greenspan came to say
“Rupert with your gold so bright Won't you buy some bonds tonight?”
Then all the moguls loved him
As they shouted out with glee
“Rupert the red-nosed mogul
You'll own all of history!"

I think companies like Google and NewsNow effectively "steal" page impressions from the news sites that went through the trouble of putting the content together. While that's not very good for the news sites, it's *extremely* convenient for me as the consumer. I mean, the real problem is, instead of the news sites displaying advertising for "browsing" the news, the aggregators get do that instead at the expense of the news sites.

Imagine these scenarios:
1) I want to read the news, so I go to Google news and see if there's anything worth reading. If I see any headlines that look interesting, I click on them.
2) I want to read the news, so I go to my bookmarks and start sifting through a few news sites. I visit the actual sites to see if there's anything worth reading.

Thus, they don't get enough advertising revenue to sustain the free news.

Solution? Stop the aggregators. Will that help? Probably too late now. So, lock down the news and charge for it. Will that work? Probably not, but who knows what other businesses can be convinced to pay for news.

Re:

Are we looking at the same Google News? When I go, I see a headline and a summary sentence, and then a link to one or more different news sites. I click on the headline, go to the "actual" site and get barraged by the ads on the news article page. Related stories and hot links on side bars alert me to other things worth reading.

The only difference between your scenario (1) and scenario (2) is one (1) home page impression. Google removes that intermediary step automatically. If there weren't a Google news, I'd get news on the internet like I used to; I'd visit Slashdot and Techdirt and Fark. The end result for the newspaper is awfully similar.

Oh, there is one other difference. In (2), you maybe have time to visit your top three of four news sites before you run out of time to search and explore. In (1), you're exposed to headlines from dozens of news outlets at once. If you're a news outlet, does it make more sense to bank on being one of someone's top three, or hope that you're one of the top dozens on Google News? Looks obvious to me...

Re:

You're making it sound like Google News provides nothing to the news sites, which obviously isn't true. If it were, every news site would simply modify their robots.txt file and be done with it. Google News sends visitors to the news sites - what they don't like is that Google makes money on providing a service making fair use of their material.

Your "solution" of stopping the aggregators simply wouldn't work, regardless. The newspapers all complain about Google, knowing full well they can block it easily. It's posturing, plain and simple - they don't want to lose the audience Google sends their way. So they raise the threat of a paywall, to see if they can get Google to cough up some money for them.

The newspapers aren't interested in solving their problems - they're interested in finding someone to blame, and trying to make them pay. Paywalls have been tried before, and for the most part have failed miserably. And without the ability to share links, social networks won't touch the sites. Micropayments are another dead-end - nobody wants to break out their credit card to read a news story.

It's not the aggregator's fault the news sites are losing money - they're just being used as scapegoats. The real problem is the news sites themselves, who have developed a massive sense of entitlement to any use of their content. They think if they can just "take back the news", everything will be fine, except what they're proposing is essentially a suicide pact.

Please remove!

re: AC

Most regional newspapers don't want to get involved in national or internation sales, and the current crop of ad serving networks really don't pay enough to make it work out properly on a large scale. These regional papers / TV stations are set up to market to local, regional, and in some cases national interests, but not to international. The additional costs to attempt to market to an over wide audience of non-clickers is just more money down the same hole.

Last time I checked Murdoch controlled a global media corporation with tv-stations, newspapers, magazines and you name it. He has local ad-sales people everywhere in the world. If he where smart he would set up his own ad-network and turn all ad-sales people into local sellers for the ad-network selling exposure in ALL his media products globally.

That way he would be able to monetize every eye-ball even if a particular eye-ball is living in Berlin, Germany and checking out an article about koala roadkill in a local paper in Adelaide, Australia.

Rupert Murdoch has the means and the resources to do this. If he doesn't then the problem is that he is too stupid and too old. Did I mention too stupid and too old?

HORRAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Faux News has long polluted attempts to find real coverage. Murdoch knows that the tubes don't wont when you fill them up with junk, so he has graciously taken his step to free up the tubes for the rest of us!

Blogging

I thought I'd kick in here because I'm an anachronism today. I'm a blogger. Seriously. I find content online...and refer it forward to readers.
See...social networking/bookmarking isn't dead. Some of us who came up behind the rush to Wikis still share finds with our friends. Special interest newsgroups are all over the place at Current TV, Care 2, Diigo...
The multiplying of toys to find content has meant more than grist for newsreaders and aggregators : it means networking is becoming ever easier.
And Google or whatever don't do what failed Marigold and changed Furl did : keep a cache of an article that works like the Internet Archive and holds it on an independent server.
Google is addictive. It does not, however, work to stash editorials or whatever for posterity. Search results are time compressed and vary. Plus there is scuttlebutt around that the feds are playing with search parameters to aid obfuscation : hiding the truth.
The truth is poison in politics. We've been having far too much fun with it.

Why exactly doesn't Google take the first steps and remove those sites itself? It would save Murdoch the work of having to open robots.txt in his notepad. I'm sure he will be very happy about it... no more aggregator, no more Google Search results about him or his newscorp.

Murdoch's lock

I have long wondered why WSJ stories are accessible on-line during the initial search but then locked when you share them with others (e.g., via social media channels). It's unbelievable actually.
In my case, I'm a subscriber to the print edition of the WSJ. When I come across a story that I think my followers on Twitter would enjoy, I find the link on-line and share it. Then hundreds (or even thousands) of others may come in contact with a story, a journalist, the WSJ brand, and its advertisers, who may not have otherwise. And then each of those recipients has a unique opportunity to share it in their own social media circles...
The decision to charge for this content appears to be driven by a scarcity mentality that suggests, "If we don't sell the story, some one else will." The mentality Murdoch may want to consider is one of abundance.
I understand that journalists need to get paid and that ad revenue alone may not generate sufficient sales to operate the news services according to current models - that's why current models need to be examined and shaped according to the future of media.
I don't pretend to have this future figured out but I feel confident that it is more closely aligned with abundance than scarcity and doesn't include content restrictions from major news sources.

Re: Murdoch's lock

I have long wondered why WSJ stories are accessible on-line during the initial search but then locked when you share them with others (e.g., via social media channels). It's unbelievable actually.

It's actually more evidence that Murdoch is trying to spread FUD about Google. The WSJ checks the referrer header, and if it comes from Google, you get to see the full article. If the link didn't come from Google, you don't.

Murdoch knows full well that Google provides a valuable service to his organizations, he just doesn't want to have to admit it.

Rupert Murdoch is is a bad journalist. Sloppy journalist. He runs Britain. I asked Tony Blair why he was allowed to have so much influence and Tony Blair said, "I wouldn't have my job without Rupert." He wants to rule the world. He has Britain, almost has Australia and he would like the US. He has no interest in helping anyone, in charity. He won't even give you an interview. He's not interesting in whether what he is doing is right or wrong.

Now I have no way of knowing if these actual interviews occurred, but the concept of "Ruling The World" has come up several times. But it's worth looking at. He seems to have an uncanny way of setting up people for failure. For example, Chase Carey was CEO of DirecTV. He left shortly after John Malone, acting through his company, Liberty Media, was somehow convinced to divest his interest in IAC. After Malone divested IAC, Barry Diller moved to start his own business, and IPO a company that would focus on internet delivery of content including direct-to-home.

Re:

"Now I have no way of knowing if these actual interviews occurred, but the concept of "Ruling The World" has come up several times."

I'd be more apt to listen to Teddy boy on this one if he wasn't regularly dining with Murdoch at Council on Foreign Relations meetings, Trilateral Commission meetings, and Bilderburger meetings where they ALSO talk about running or taking over the world.

The truth is that the newspapers are scared, REALLY scared, they are losing their power, and therefore money, because of the internet; Murdoch's desparately trying to claw back some of that power.

And it doesn't matter that he is being hypocritical, that will occur to very few who hear his words, and the fact is that just by making this statement will give him a tiny bit of extra fame and power.

BTW Homer didn't actually create 'his' works, he only wrote down the popular tales of the time.

Bankruptcy help

Since a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity, it cannot file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on its own. When a sole proprietor files a personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the business also files as a result.bankruptcy advice